ISLAMIC face veils have become "the elephant in the court room" a judge said today as he ruled a Muslim woman must remove her niqab when giving evidence.

A Muslim woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, arrives at Blackfriars Crown Court [PA]

But the female defendant, who cannot be named for legal reasons, will be able to wear her niqab during the rest of the trial.

Making the decision, Judge Peter Murphy called on the Government to make a legal ruling on the issue of veils in legal proceedings as soon as possible.

He said the woman would have to show her face to the judge, jury and legal counsel when giving evidence.

But she would have the option of taking it from behind a screen that would shield her from the press and public gallery.

He said the administration of justice “must prevail” over religious manifestation.

He said: "In general, the defendant is free to wear the niqab during trial.

"If the defendant gives evidence she must remove the niqab throughout her evidence.

"The court may use its inherent powers to do what it can to alleviate any discomfort, for example by allowing the use of screens or allowing her to give evidence by live link."

The 22-year-old from London, who said it is against her religious beliefs to show her face in public, entered a not guilty plea to a charge of intimidation last week while wearing a niqab after the judge backed down from a previous decision that she would have to show her face to be properly identified.

Lib Dem Jeremy Browne wants a debate on whether the niqab should be banned in public [GETTY]

No tradition or practice, whether religious or otherwise, can claim to occupy such a privileged position that the rule of law, open justice and the adversarial trial process are sacrificed to accommodate it.

Judge Peter Murphy

Making his final judgment today, the judge said: "The ability of the jury to see the defendant for the purposes of evaluating her evidence is crucial."

Referring to the woman as "D", the judge said she had only worn the veil since May 2012 but his decision would have been the same if she had worn it for years.

He went on: "I accept for the purposes of this judgment that D sincerely takes the view that as a Muslim woman, she is either not permitted or chooses not to uncover her face in the presence of men who are not members of her close family.

"I have been given no reason to doubt the sincerity of her belief."

The judge said it was necessary for a democratic society to restrict the rights of a defendant to wear a niqab during court proceedings.

He said: "Balancing the right of religious manifestation against the rights and freedoms of the public, the press and other interested parties such as the complainant in the proper administration of justice, the latter must prevail over D's right to manifest her religion or belief during the proceedings against her to the extent necessary in the interests of justice.

"No tradition or practice, whether religious or otherwise, can claim to occupy such a privileged position that the rule of law, open justice and the adversarial trial process are sacrificed to accommodate it.

"That is not a discrimination against religion, it is a matter of upholding the rule of law in a democratic society."

The woman sat listening to the 90-minute judgment from the dock wearing the burka and niqab, with only her eyes visible.

Judge Murphy told the packed courtroom there was a strong public interest in women who might be the victims of crime coming forward without the fear that the court process could compromise their religious beliefs and practices.

He said there was a "pressing need" to address the issue of whether women involved in proceedings should be allowed to wear veils in court.

"Given the ever-increasing diversity of society in England and Wales, this is a question which may be expected to arise more and more frequently and to which an answer must be provided," he said.

The judge said that according to the Human Rights Act 1998, the defendant has the right to manifest her religion or belief.

But he also said she is not the only person with rights who is involved in the trial.

"For several centuries the criminal courts in England and Wales have relied on the process of adversarial trial in open court. Today the courts rely on this process to uphold the rule of law, to provide a trial which is fair to all parties, and to allow the highest possible degree of openness and transparency.

"A criminal trial in the Crown Court is, by definition, a serious matter. It has the potential to change lives - not only that of the defendant, but also that of victims, witnesses and even jurors.

"The rights of all participants in the trial must be considered," he said.

Referring to the basic governing principles of the courts, he said there is a "proud record of upholding religious freedoms which are a valued part of our democratic way of life".

"The court has the utmost respect for all religious beliefs, traditions and practices, and makes no distinction between those of different religious faiths or between those with a religious faith and those with no religious faith," he added.

Judge Murphy said when the woman is asked to take off the niqab ahead of giving evidence, she should be given some time to reflect beforehand.

"If she refuses the judge should not allow her to give evidence and must give the jury a clear direction," he said.

She must also remove it in front of a female police officer or other witness for the purposes of identification, as she has done so in previous hearings.

Although a screen will be offered to shield her from public view, she must still be seen by the judge, jury and legal counsel, although she also has the option to give evidence over a live TV link.

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, condemned the ruling.

He said: "It is vital that defendants' faces are visible at all times, including while others are giving evidence, so we regret the judge's decision not to require this.

"We will be complaining to the Office of Judicial Complaints and also be asking senior legal officers to make visibility throughout court hearings mandatory, and not subject to judges' discretion."

Today a Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "At present there is no legislation governing the wearing of veils in court."